BarkingUnicorn:(A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.

Obviously this case shows that you are at substantial risk if you allow police onto your property and into your home without a warrant and thus under no obligation to assist them.

LrdPhoenix:EVERYBODY PANIC: Hey, this is what big government does. Why are we surprised. And just wait... Big government is gonna get LAAAAARGER! Yay!

This isn't big government, this is city government, which is as small time as you can get. Don't forget, the people crying about big government often say that the states, counties, and cities should be able to do practically whatever they want, even though that's the level where the most blatant rights abuses take place since the feds tend to watch their step and make sure that they actually have a good and legal reason to do so when it comes to actually causing legal injury to others.

Agree, most folks who prefer smaller govt are especially focussed on the abuses at the federal level. But it is still oppressive and wrong for any organization entrusted with authority to so badly abuse the regular folk. This does not bode well for the future. Your correction is appreciated.

eventhelosers:I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Yeah, you tell them! Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars. It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form! I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle. America, fark YEAH!

Mock26:eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Yeah, you tell them! Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars. It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form! I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle. America, fark YEAH!

The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess. If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower. And for the same farking reason they give.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

But, but, no police officer in America has ever been in an active shooter situation where they would need an armored vehicle to protect themselves or victims! It is just not possible! All criminals have an honor code that prevents them from being heavily armed or armored! Gee, EVERYONE knows that.

(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is: (A) acting unlawfully; or (B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.

And when the german people claimed, "we didn't know what he was going to do!" the response should have been "he made it pretty damn clear what he was planning to, and since everyone was pretty much required to memorize that horrid book, you knew."

Mock26:hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

But, but, no police officer in America has ever been in an active shooter situation where they would need an armored vehicle to protect themselves or victims! It is just not possible! All criminals have an honor code that prevents them from being heavily armed or armored! Gee, EVERYONE knows that.

If the police limited themselves to using their special gear in those extreme and RARE circumstances, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. Except they like to go full on military raid style for non-violent and minor warrants, e.g. simple pot possession.

eventhelosers:hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest. Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third: You got it right. (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth: Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army. Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?

gfid:This is an outrage if even remotely true, however a search of the news turns up no other stories about this. I suppose I could look up the court records and see if there really is a lawsuit filed.

CourtHouseNews is a fairly old (est. mid-90s) legit news service with no political agenda. It publishes civil cases of interest to legal pros, that's all.

That's a rather broad statement that is not factual. In Texas, you do have the right to shoot the police and it is even specifically called out:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(this is defining use of force but not lethal force, but this opens the door for legal force)

eventhelosers:I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997? Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically. You do remember that, right? Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

Mock26:eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997? Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically. You do remember that, right? Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

Mock26:eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest. Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third: You got it right. (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth: Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army. Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?

OgreMagi:Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Yeah, you tell them! Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars. It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form! I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle. America, fark YEAH!

The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess. If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower. And for the same farking reason they give.

Right! Because everyone knows that no criminal would ever dare use a firearm that a civilian was not allowed to possess. In the entire history of America no police officer has ever confronted a criminal using a firearm that would otherwise be illegal in the hands of a civilian. Not a single incident. I am so happy to live in a country where criminals obey the law.

Also, you do realize that the unarmed vehicle pictured is, well, an unarmed vehicle? You can own one of those if you want.

OgreMagi:Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997? Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically. You do remember that, right? Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?

Also, how does that rate on the 9/11 scale? Two football fields or an Olympic swimming pool?

hardinparamedic:The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

eventhelosers:Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest. Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third: You got it right. (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth: Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army. Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?

[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

OK here we go.........

I've driven them. First hand experience.

Not too bright, are you? Did you see the part that I had highlighted? I will give you a hint, it was this part: First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest. Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.Where is your proof of that? Or are you saying that you drove the APC at the protest?

OgreMagi:The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess. If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower. And for the same farking reason they give.

This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us. How can we give them something we don't have?

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.

OK, so empirically speaking, it wasn't a good playbook?

Actually, empirically speaking, it was a great playbook. Hitler did manage to rebuild the German economy and manufacturing capabilities from one of the worst conditions in the history of any country in the world to the point that it could compete on a global scale, and then very, very nearly used that to conquer the world, in only just a decade or so.

It's kinda like the lowest rated football team with 0 wins getting a new coach who manages to take them to the Superbowl which they only lose by 1 point.

OgreMagi:Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997? Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically. You do remember that, right? Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?

So what, are you somehow trying to say that that was some sort of one time incident, that it can never happen again and that no criminal would ever dare use a high powered rifle capable of penetrating body armor and vehicles?

Mock26:eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997? Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically. You do remember that, right? Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them, IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.

pedrop357:OgreMagi: The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess. If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower. And for the same farking reason they give.

This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us. How can we give them something we don't have?

And how do you propose to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess? Do you think a strongly worded letter would work? Maybe a stern lecture with some finger wagging and brow furrowing? OR MAYBE AN ALL CAPS POST ON THE INTERNET?

eventhelosers:Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997? Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically. You do remember that, right? Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them, IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.

Mock26:OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997? Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically. You do remember that, right? Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?

So what, are you somehow trying to say that that was some sort of one time incident, that it can never happen again and that no criminal would ever dare use a high powered rifle capable of penetrating body armor and vehicles?

You argue like a teenager. You use extreme examples, unlikely events, and bad logic.

You argue the police need more firepower because criminals don't follow the rules. I agree. And because the criminals almost always target non law professionals (us civilians), we have an even greater need for that fire power. You just argued that the people being targeted need better weapons. So are you going to back off on that argument now, or are you going to go for some more "really stupid logic", which is your specialty?

Mock26:eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest. Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third: You got it right. (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth: Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army. Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?

[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

OK here we go.........

I've driven them. First hand experience.

Not too bright, are you? Did you see the part that I had highlighted? I will give you a hint, it was this part: First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest. Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.Where is your proof of that? Or are you saying that you drove the APC at the protest?

ok you win I'm wrong, APC's drive like Ferraris at speed on pavement.

You know some criminals are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, I think all police departments need nuclear weapons too.

Mock26:eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2". These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well. This shiat is out of line. Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997? Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically. You do remember that, right? Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them, IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.

Wow. You really are stupid.

And you appear to have gathered your reality from Steven Seagal and Bruce Willis movies.

hardinparamedic:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.

you are forgetting one thing... a seance cannot provide legal evidence in court, so it would be the word of the defendant against.... silence.